Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 14, 2012 at 8:01 AM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #745690June 14, 2012 at 7:23 AM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #745683
SK in CV
Participant[quote=harvey][quote=SK in CV]My credibility is shot? I’m not the one that said companies with defined benefit plans don’t have any investors. You just acknowledged that 17% of Fortune 100 companies still have them. Across thousands of public companies, that would amount to hundreds that still have defined benefit plans. And every one of them still have investors.[/quote]
We’ll ignore the bit where he completely misrepresents what I said, because this one is more fun:
17% of 100 = “hundreds”
What was that about exaggeration being a bad thing?[/quote]
Read what I said and the arithmetic might be easier.
“Across thousands of public companies, that would amount to hundreds that still have defined benefit plans.”
There are roughly 15,000 public companies in the US.
15,000 x 17% = 2,550
And which part of this did I misrepresent?
June 13, 2012 at 8:55 PM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #745668Participant[quote=harvey]I was playing a game of football with some of my friends the other day. It was tackle, but we weren’t really trying to hurt each other. It was a good game, both of the teams are playing hard. Even though it was a friendly game, everybody clearly wanted to win. There were the usual minor disputes about rules, out-of-bounds, etc. but it was mostly civil.
My team was playing well, we were moving the ball, scoring points.
While we played there was this guy standing on the sidelines. We invited him to join the game, but he wouldn’t play.
Any time a player on my team makes a minor mistake – a missed block, a dropped pass, this guy would laugh and taunt from the sidelines: “losers!” He would also randomly call bogus penalties, as if he were the referee, like “offsides” – but only against my team.
We ask him “you’re not playing and your aren’t the ref – WTF?” The guy crosses his arms and shrugs. He claims he just cares about the rules and he’s “agnostic” about who wins, even though its obvious to everyone he isn’t. Whatever, we’re not really even keeping score. We keep playing. He still shouts his occasional comments.
Another thing, he was oddly dressed.
Finally one of the players shouted to him: “you’re a grown man for crick-sakes, quit embarrassing yourself. If you refuse to go home and take off the cheerleader skirt, then at least get in the game.”[/quote]
Good one. But that’s a cruel crack about the skirt. I wasn’t wearing a skirt.
June 13, 2012 at 8:21 PM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #745660Participant[quote=harvey][quote=SK in CV]17% or 30% where the claim was essentially an absolute 0% = Material.[/quote]
“essentially”
Can’t say it without the qualifier, eh?
I wonder why you have say “essentially” in that sentence?
Trying to change what was said, perhaps? Tweak it a bit?
What’s that phrase again … “words have meaning?”[/quote]
Sure, here’s what you said:
“Shareholders leaned their lesson, and know better than to go anywhere near a company with long-term pension obligations.
You didn’t actually say that no companies have defined benefit plans. You said companies with defnined benefit plans have no investors. And since public companies do have investors (otherwise they wouldn’t be publicly traded, no investors, nothing to trade), your claim was “essentially” that publicly traded companies no longer have defined benefit plans.
So yes, I interpreted what you said, provided evidence that it was false (which you confirmed), and rather than inappropriately quote you, I used the word essentially.
And yes, I misattributed the $100K pension = $3M 401K to you. It was not you. My apologies.
June 13, 2012 at 6:43 PM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #745652Participant[quote=harvey]
Really? Because you seem to have a quite a bias toward whose “data or logic” you decide to challenge.[/quote]
I admit it. I have such a bias. I pretty much only challenge data or logic that I think is faulty. You busted me on that one.
June 13, 2012 at 6:41 PM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #745651Participant[quote=harvey]
Material. I know you know what it means.[/quote]
Yeah, I know what it means.
Number of dogs with less than 4 legs and no fur = Not Material.
17% or 30% where the claim was essentially an absolute 0% = Material.
June 13, 2012 at 6:17 PM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #745649Participant[quote=harvey]
You think you can “win” by avoiding the actual debate and “snagging” a few minor details (even lying about them.)It don’t work that way.[/quote]
My only involvement in the debate has been to question what I think is innacurate data or logic used in the arguments. Those “minor details” are the support for the arguments. They’re not trivial.
I’ve lied? Not a chance. I’ve told you, I’m agnostic about the entire issue. I like Brown’s recommended changes. But the trends are the trends. If it makes you feel better, you win. I have no emotional attachment to any of the arguments.
June 13, 2012 at 5:47 PM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #745642Participant[quote=harvey][quote=SK in CV][…] When you’re a little bit off on all of the support for your arguments, then the credibility of the entire argument is reduced. Those little facts matter.[/quote]
They sure do!
[quote]Somewhere between 20 and 30% of Fortune 500 companies still offer DB plans to new employees. [/quote]
http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/20/only-17-fortune-100-companies
Only 17 Fortune 100 Companies Still Offer Defined Benefit Retirement Plans
That was 2 years ago, I’m sure it is less today.
Now tell me again, do the little facts matter? (or only when you make them up?)
Yes, there are still some lingering DB plans around. They are long-term plans, they will take time to phase out. But the point (you never actually make a point, except to nit-pick) is that they are going away because shareholders/investors no longer tolerate the risks associated with them.
No company is expanding their DB plans, and just about every company is eliminating them. Because that’s what shareholders want.
sdrealor’s point in his post above is spot on. Your credibility is completely shot.
No go ahead and proceed to say that I “redefined” words or that “words have meaning” or some other cop-out. Anybody (without a very bitter chip on their shoulder) who read my paragraph about how and why DB plans are going away knew exactly what I meant.
Keep on nit-pickin. Cite “facts” that are wrong. It’s all you got, dude![/quote]
Conflicting evidence.
http://www.workforce.com/article/20110905/NEWS02/309059997
This article says “As of May 31, 30% of Fortune 100 companies offered a defined benefit plan to new salaried employees, the New York-based consultant said.”
That’s a few days more than 1 year ago.
My credibility is shot? I’m not the one that said companies with defined benefit plans don’t have any investors. You just acknowledged that 17% of Fortune 100 companies still have them. Across thousands of public companies, that would amount to hundreds that still have defined benefit plans. And every one of them still have investors.
June 13, 2012 at 4:58 PM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #745635Participant[quote=harvey]Bring on the nit-picks![/quote]
That’s the problem with so many of your arguments harvey. A $100K pension isn’t really the same as a $3M 401K, it’s closer to $2M. And a $100K isn’t really representative of most retiree’s pensions, it’s closer to $50K. When you’re a little bit off on all of the support for your arguments, then the credibility of the entire argument is reduced. Those little facts matter. Exaggeration can work pretty good in comedy, but when you’re arguing public policy, exaggeration leads to the failure of the argument.
Somewhere between 20 and 30% of Fortune 500 companies still offer DB plans to new employees. (A year ago, it was 30%, I can’t quickly find any newer number than that.) That number does seem to still be shrinking, but there is evidence that the velocity of the companies terminating DB plans is slowing. And contrary to your claim, they still have investors buying their stock.
June 13, 2012 at 4:27 PM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #745632Participant[quote=harvey]Shareholders leaned their lesson, and know better than to go anywhere near a company with long-term pension obligations.[/quote]
You sure of that? Or just guessing?
June 13, 2012 at 2:02 PM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #745613Participant[quote=harvey]Now that you mention it, I think it was you.
Do you only agree with Jerry that there is a problem, or do you also agree with his proposed solution?
http://gov.ca.gov/docs/Twelve_Point_Pension_Reform_10.27.11.pdf%5B/quote%5D
Yes.
June 13, 2012 at 1:45 PM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #745609Participant[quote=harvey][quote=SK in CV]Who is it that’s refused to acknowledge a problem? Just because there are differing views of both the scope of the problem, and possible solutions, doesn’t mean that anyone is blind to the problem.[/quote]
There is one poster in particular who claimed bluntly that there was no difference between the the way the public and private sectors are compensated, described the pension crisis as “perceived,” and argued that critics have based their opinions on data that “probably represent minority exceptions.”
Even if this poster does actually believe there is a problem, they have yet to offer any solution, or even a substantial critique of the solutions offered by others (aside from a few stray nit-picks.)
I can’t recall the name of this particular poster, though I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Jerry Brown, who recently said this:
The pension vote in San Jose, which is… a more liberal city than the state as a whole, is a very powerful signal that pension reform is an imperative. It’s really important.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/08/us-pensions-california-idUSBRE8570AO20120608%5B/quote%5D
I’m reasonably sure the poster you were referring to was me.
I’m not positive I actually said all those things, but I’ll take your word for it. How do any of those prove that I have refused to acknowledge that there is a problem? I’m reasonbly sure I’ve never been asked to make that acknowldement. Which was pretty much my point. Just because we disagree on the scope or cause of the problem, doesn’t mean that I think it doesn’t exist. Fact is, I think there is a problem with the pension system. I agree with Jerry Brown.
June 13, 2012 at 12:55 PM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #745604Participant[quote=harvey][quote=sdrealtor]Huh? I asked what they were in simple terms and you couldnt confidentlly come close to doing that. I gave you the opportunity to defend your position and you punted. Fair enough. I will just go to google and look it up for myself. No doubt I’ll find a “pension hater” blog with an explanation you will claim is slanted. SO be it.[/quote]
I’m not sure why this is happening on this particular issue, but some otherwise reasonable folks don’t seem to want to even acknowledge that there is a problem, let alone discuss the merits of various solutions.
There really is no debate that there are major issues with public-sector pensions. It’s not a partisan issue either – ask Jerry Brown or the Democratic mayors of of many cities.
Anyone who wants to claim that the concerns are all a matter of “perception” or “envy” is simply not credible. It’s a real problem on the scale of hundreds of billions of dollars.
Let’s not get distracted trying to prove there is an elephant standing in the room, just because there are a few stubborn folks who choose to be blind.
Instead, let’s talk about how we are going to clean up the shit pile the elephant created, and how we can move the animal outside so it doesn’t happen again.
There are very straightforward and fair solutions to this problem.[/quote]
Who is it that’s refused to acknowledge a problem? Just because there are differing views of both the scope of the problem, and possible solutions, doesn’t mean that anyone is blind to the problem.
June 13, 2012 at 10:43 AM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #745585Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Huh? I asked what they were in simple terms and you couldnt confidentlly come close to doing that. I gave you the opportunity to defend your position and you punted. Fair enough. I will just go to google and look it up for myself. No doubt I’ll find a “pension hater” blog with an explanation you will claim is slanted. SO be it.[/quote]
I explained what it is in simple terms. I’m pretty sure I understand the basics. I also know the specifics vary from plan to plan. I’m not sure which position you want me to defend. I’m pretty agnostic about the DROP program as a whole. I understand the logic.
Here’s a pretty decent overview of how they work.
http://benefitsattorney.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=14
June 13, 2012 at 10:16 AM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #745580Participant[quote=sdrealtor][quote=SK in CV][quote=sdrealtor]That couldn’t have been less clear. In English please[/quote]
Public employee of 25 years agrees to stop working in 2 years or less and gets an extra $100K into their retirement package. They stop accruing new benefits immediately.
I made these numbers up, but it I think in general it works something like that.[/quote]
A couple posts above you stated strongly that:
“Specifically related to the various public DROP programs, I think your observation that opposition may be envy-based is spot on. I’m not sure there’s any way to prove that it is so. Yet I strongly suspect it’s true.”
Now it seems like you dont even know what they are? You just said “I think in general it works something like that.”
Cmon you got to do better in explaining what they are. You are quickly losing credibility.[/quote]
How’s that? Because I don’t know precisely how they work, it’s impossible for me to make an observation why others don’t like them?
Ridiculous conclusion.
-
AuthorPosts
